Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37104303›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2023

A double dissociation between savings and long-term memory in motor learning.

Alkis M Hadjiosif, J Ryan Morehead, Maurice A Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Sensory basis of speech motor learning and memory.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Motor working memory.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Indirect feedback hinders explicit sensorimotor adaptation.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alkis M HadjiosifJohn A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
J Ryan MoreheadJohn A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Maurice A SmithJohn A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4214-1277

Funding

Dissociating Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motor Learning in Alzheimer's DiseaseR01AG041878 · NIA · HARVARD UNIVERSITY · PI SMITH, MAURICE A · 2012 to 2016
$1.7M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG041878
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Memories are easier to relearn than learn from scratch. This advantage, known as savings, has been widely assumed to result from the reemergence of stable long-term memories. In fact, the presence of savings has often been used as a marker for whether a memory has been consolidated. However, recent findings have demonstrated that motor learning rates can be systematically controlled, providing a mechanistic alternative to the reemergence of a stable long-term memory. Moreover, recent work has reported conflicting results about whether implicit contributions to savings in motor learning are present, absent, or inverted, suggesting a limited understanding of the underlying mechanisms. To elucidate these mechanisms, we investigate the relationship between savings and long-term memory by experimentally dissecting the underlying memories based on short-term (60-s) temporal persistence. Components of motor memory that are temporally-persistent at 60 s might go on to contribute to stable, consolidated long-term memory, whereas temporally-volatile components that have already decayed away by 60 s cannot. Surprisingly, we find that temporally-volatile implicit learning leads to savings, whereas temporally-persistent learning does not, but that temporally-persistent learning leads to long-term memory at 24 h, whereas temporally-volatile learning does not. This double dissociation between the mechanisms for savings and long-term memory formation challenges widespread assumptions about the connection between savings and memory consolidation. Moreover, we find that temporally-persistent implicit learning not only fails to contribute to savings, but also that it produces an opposite, anti-savings effect, and that the interplay between this temporally-persistent anti-savings and temporally-volatile savings provides an explanation for several seemingly conflicting recent reports about whether implicit contributions to savings are present, absent, or inverted. Finally, the learning curves we observed for the acquisition of temporally-volatile and temporally-persistent implicit memories demonstrate the coexistence of implicit memories with distinct time courses, challenging the assertion that models of context-based learning and estimation should supplant models of adaptive processes with different learning rates. Together, these findings provide new insight into the mechanisms for savings and long-term memory formation.

Indexed as

Memory ConsolidationMemory, Long-TermMental Recall

Identifiers

PMID37104303
PMCPMC10138789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.